Gun stories missing from the headlines

By Halifax Media NC

Published: Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 04:05 PM.

Both of these stories illustrated a radical truth – in a culture such as the American culture, where guns are a commodity, the best way to be safe is to be able to defend oneself with the same firearm that the criminal or deranged are bringing to the table.

This is not what we want, of course. We want to live in a society with less violence. We also want to live in society with fewer car wrecks, but rather than try to limit the number of vehicles on the road, we take other steps, such as buying a car with more safety features, or adjusting our driving habits, etc.

There is no way around this fact: If we could rewind the clock, the one thing that could be changed that would give the students in Columbine or Newtown the best chance of survival is for responsible people on those campuses to have a gun. To argue this statement isn’t true is to allow one’s feelings or narrative of the gun debate story to trump common sense.

More theatergoers in Texas would have been killed had not Sgt. Castellano been armed and on the scene and the New York newspaper’s employees would be in more danger without the armed guards than with them.

We understand and support a reduction in violence in this country. We believe there are limits on the Second Amendment – in particular, we favor applying a “clear and present danger” standard to gun ownership, under which common firearms such as pistols and rifles and shotguns would fall below the threshold, but other obviously inherently dangerous weapons would not.

But there is one thing we oppose more than gun violence, and that is innocent people being killed.

Two fascinating stories are not receiving as much attention as they should – probably because they don’t fit the mainstream media’s gun control narrative.

The first comes from San Antonio, Texas.

Two days – TWO DAYS – after the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio and opened fire. Panicked moviegoers scrambled for cover or darted for the exits.

The shooting actually started at a nearby restaurant, then “carried on into the theater,” according to a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesman.

At one point, the suspect fired at a marked police cruiser.

“Numerous” shots were fired, according to witnesses.

So, you might ask, why don’t I remember hearing about this story? Why were only two people wounded?

The answer is off-duty Bexar County Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who happened to be at the movie theater and happened to be carrying her gun.

She cornered the suspect, shot him (but not fatally) and handcuffed him.

The obvious question is: How many lives did Sgt. Castellano save? Can anybody else offer a plausible scenario where lives would have been saved that did not involve someone there with a gun to stop the suspect?

The second story is from New York. You may have read about a White Plains, N.Y., newspaper that posted a map on its website, listing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two of counties in their circulation area.

The information is public record. But guns rights and privacy advocates have blasted the newspaper for publishing the information and have, regretfully, resorted to threats of violence as part of their disagreement.

What is interesting, however, is the newspaper’s response to these threats. While the clear one of the series is that guns are inherently dangerous and the public needs to know in which homes they are located, the newspaper’s response to alleged threats was to hire armed guards for its building!

So, apparently, what’s good for the goose …

Both of these stories illustrated a radical truth – in a culture such as the American culture, where guns are a commodity, the best way to be safe is to be able to defend oneself with the same firearm that the criminal or deranged are bringing to the table.

This is not what we want, of course. We want to live in a society with less violence. We also want to live in society with fewer car wrecks, but rather than try to limit the number of vehicles on the road, we take other steps, such as buying a car with more safety features, or adjusting our driving habits, etc.

There is no way around this fact: If we could rewind the clock, the one thing that could be changed that would give the students in Columbine or Newtown the best chance of survival is for responsible people on those campuses to have a gun. To argue this statement isn’t true is to allow one’s feelings or narrative of the gun debate story to trump common sense.

More theatergoers in Texas would have been killed had not Sgt. Castellano been armed and on the scene and the New York newspaper’s employees would be in more danger without the armed guards than with them.

We understand and support a reduction in violence in this country. We believe there are limits on the Second Amendment – in particular, we favor applying a “clear and present danger” standard to gun ownership, under which common firearms such as pistols and rifles and shotguns would fall below the threshold, but other obviously inherently dangerous weapons would not.

But there is one thing we oppose more than gun violence, and that is innocent people being killed.